MPI provides an interactive tool to determine your responsibilities under The Food Act 2014

The New Zealand Food Act 2014 comes into force on 1st March, 2016.  This will not be news to major food manufacturers, but does affect everyone working in the food industry; their responsibility is to produce safe food.

The new Act focusses on the processes of food production, rather than the premises where these activities are carried out. i.e. the old "floors, walls and ceilings" approach is long gone.  The other major difference from earlier legislation is that it takes account of the risk associated with any particular business (and that includes the activities of clubs and societies that raise funds via sales of food, such as pizzas).  The new Act brings in Food Control Plans for high risk food production and supply (in fact, many businesses have been operating under FCPs for some time), and introduces National Programmes for activities with lower risk.  Thus manufacture of ice cream is treated rather differently from the sale of coffee from a mobile operation at shows and open days.

One of the problems currently faced by smaller operations, such as corner dairies, saussage sizzles and community shared meals like club gatherings for members and guests, where food may be sold, but not as the primary purpose of the gathering, is knowing exactly what is required in terms of the regulations.  The New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries (Te Manatu Ahu Matua) has provided an easy-to-use interactive tool to help all organisations involved in producing, selling and providing food to determine their responsibilities under the new Act.  The tool is called Where do I fit? and poses a series of questions you can answer by clicking responses.  The tool will then tell you your responsibilities and the requirements of the Act, together with links to further information.

I have not tested the tool extensively, but it is very easy to use and provides lots of helpful information.  I specifically tested it from the perspective of my gliding club's putting on a fundraiser and found the output very helpful.

European food regulators make asses of themselves again.

Of course, it would be illegal to pass off one sort of meat as another, but this post is not about false labelling.

This time, the European Union wanted to ban olive oil jugs and dipping bowls from restaurant tables, replacing these traditional offerings with sealed, pre-packaged containers of oil.
See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10064787/EU-to-ban-olive-oil-jugs-from-restaurants.html

Not surprisingly, this has caused some negative comment from restaurateurs, producers, food writers and some politicians, including the British Prime Minister, who made a painful word play, saying that this measure "Shouldn't even be on the table".

Apparently, the EU now says that the measure will be rescinded, but I suspect we have not heard the end of it, as major olive oil producers, including Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, supported the measure, and farmer lobby groups have vowed to fight on.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/europe/european-commission-tables-olive-oil-rule.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&


Odd spot:  if you want to read some more of the EU shenanigans, have a look at the definition of 'strawberry'.  I've read that bananas, cucumbers and Cornish Pasties have also had a troubled time in the regulations.

Fancy a snot pie?

The thought of this is totally gross.  Why would I contemplate writing under such a heading?

Unfortunately, it's quite possible that some customers have in fact been sold pies contaminated by the profuse nasal secretions of a baby held in the arms of the cook filling the pies.  Talia Shadwell wrote a piece in the Manawatu Standard at the end of December 2012 about a family-owned Rangitikei food premises forced to close because of a very unfavourable food safety inspection report.  In addition to the highly probable contamination of the pies by the infant, the milkshake blender was encrusted with rotten milk.  It is likely that there were other violations of good catering practice and the Food Hygiene Regulations.

Legislation is changing in New Zealand, but it is safe to say that the intent of the regulations will not change.  District councils are responsible for registering food premises and it is illegal to sell food not produced in registered premises.

"No persons shall be issued with a Certificate of Registration for food premises (except a vehicle used solely for the carriage or delivery of food for sale) unless -

• That person has been issued with a Council recognised Certificate in Food Hygiene or another qualification approved by Council; or
• There is, working on the food premises, a Manager or a staff member with specific responsibility for staff training in food hygiene, who has been issued with a Certificate in Food Hygiene, a Certificate in Basic Food Hygiene or other qualification approved by Council."

 It is perhaps surprising that the inspection report noted that the family had 'very limited' knowledge of food hygiene and food safety practices.

Unfortunately, this state of affairs is probably more common than we would like to think - many food premises are run by immigrants who provide the rich diversity of foods available in New Zealand, but who may have very limited knowledge of the language and regulations. This is no excuse for poor hygiene and food production practices.

Consumers have a right to expect their food to be safe to consume and to be produced under aesthetically acceptable conditions.

Poor Understanding - Raw Milk in New Zealand

Last week, I read an interesting article by Jill Galloway in the Manawatu Standard entitled "Selling milk as it was meant to be".  The story was about the increasing sales of unpasteurised and non-homogenised milk at the farm gate.  Unfortunately, the author and/or her interviewees made a number of errors.

Under New Zealand law, sales of raw milk from the farm gate have been permitted for several decades.  All other milk and milk products must be pasteurised or given an approved alternative treatment. Section 11A of the Food Act 1981 allows for producers to sell up to five litres of raw milk at any one time from their farm gates to people who intend to consume it themselves, or to provide it to their families.  However, the milk must be harvested under an approved Risk Management Programme under the Animal Products Act 1999.

So if farmers follow the rules, there should be no problem about safety.

However the article went on to express some strange views.

For example: "People believe in the integrity of food.  People want to know where it comes from. Processing destroys dairy products".

Or how about: (Farmers) "are up against rules, regulations and science".

But my favourite was:  "Before processed milk, there was no heart disease. Homogenisation means the fat particles are small enough to be ingested, not digested, and go straight through to the blood and arteries," Ms M. says. She thinks homogenisation began because people thought the fat on the top of milk was bad and they did not want to see it.

Hang on a minute.  If Ms M. is correct, then the dairy companies are actually delivering what consumers are demanding.

Second place goes to Farmer C: "When it is pasteurised, the milk becomes dead. People don't want to be eating or drinking dead stuff."

So you never had a steak, Mr. C?

I guess I should not poke fun at these people, who genuinely believe that their product is better than pasteurised milk.  And indeed, they are producing their product according to the NZFSA regulations.  But it does worry me that people can be so smart in some aspects of their lives but authoritatively make such ignorant statements.

To test, or not to test – that is the question (with apologies to Shakespeare).

I had intended to write my next blog article on the latest information on Campylobacter in New Zealand.  However, in view of the continuing Salmonella-in-eggs problem in the USA and yet another recall in New York State of ground beef owing to the detection of Salmonella, I decided to write about product testing and the alternatives.

It had been suggested that the feed was the source of Salmonella that infected the Wright County Egg Co.  Reporting in the Wall Street Journal last week, Alicia Mundy and Bill Tomson wrote that the Food and Drug Administration had failed to detect Salmonella at the premises of the suppliers of the feed: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704394704575496191032884412.html

Officials warned that the investigation was continuing, but from my point of view, the fact that Salmonella was detected in the Wright County Egg Co. farm(s) on 426 occasions from 2008 to present is a pointer to the farms at least having some responsibility.

Testing of products, be they eggs, steaks or lettuces, can potentially detect Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, allowing us to reject the lot.  Unfortunately, testing doesn’t guarantee that we will detect Salmonella.  In all sampling plans that I am aware of, detection of Salmonella in the sample is cause for rejection.  Under the ICMSF 2-class attribute sampling plan nomenclature, ‘n’ is the number of samples to be taken from a lot, ‘c’ is the number of failures permitted and ‘m’ is the threshold above which the sample fails. Thus for Salmonella testing, c = 0 and m = 0.  What number of samples should we take?

Statistics show us that when the frequency of contamination in the lot is 1 in 1000, setting c = 0 we would need to examine 2995 samples to achieve 95% confidence in detecting the defective sample; that is, we would still have a 5% chance of accepting a contaminated lot.

Put another way, extensive testing is prohibitively expensive, and many sampling plans call for only 5 samples to be taken from a lot. Even with 40% of the lot being defective, we would still accept the lot about 8% of the time.

So, testing seems a bit unreliable.  Is there a better way?  Well, yes there is.  It’s called HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) and it came out of the space programme, developed initially as the Modes of Failure Programme by the Natick laboratory and then by The Pilsbury Corporation.  Without going into detail on this occasion, it involves looking at the ingredients, the process and the processing facilities and looking for every way the food might become unsafe.  These aspects are eliminated where possible and those hazards that cannot be eliminated are controlled by keeping tight control over Critical Control Points, such as cooking operations.

The hazard analysis can then be used to develop a Food Safety Programme for the factory.  The factory runs the process according to this programme and monitors the CCPs and keeps accurate records of the entire process.  There is then no need for end product testing – if the process is under control,  safe food will be produced.  Regulatory monitoring becomes a matter of checking the records and auditing the programme on a regular basis.  This is a really good system and in a perfect world, it would work perfectly.

The problem with this approach is that the regulators need to have enough staff to do the inspections and the companies running the factory have to obey the rules, keep accurate records and come clean the minute something goes wrong.  Companies must want to produce safe food, rather than just make money.

It is very sad that in many of the recent food poisoning outbreaks, it has eventually been shown that companies falsified records, while supposedly independent inspections were at best inadequate and at worst negligent and corrupt.  

In this environment, the regulators need more staff, better legislation and more powers to shut down unsafe operations.  I have watched in horror as one outbreak after another has resulted in severe injury to some consumers, massive food recalls and in some cases permanent shutdown of factories and wondered, “Where will it all end?  Will there be any food manufacturers left in business?  Will testing requirements become so onerous that food becomes ridiculously expensive?”  

I don’t think there is an easy solution, but until the cowboys have all gone, I see no alternative to better legislation, more truly independent inspection, more frequent testing of product and full traceability of raw materials and finished products.

Guest Editorial - Additives in New Zealand Foods

This blog has not been updated for some time, mainly because we have been hard at work studying the growth of Cronobacter sakazakii. This work has now been submitted for publication and I have time to write more articles. Some of our work on C. sakazakii will appear in a later post.

To get us off to a good start, here is a guest article, written by one of my colleagues, Associate Professor Owen Young of Auckland University of Technology:

Food Additives in New Zealand

I recently had AUT University students systematically survey packaged food labels in Auckland supermarkets for health claims. These could be real (e.g. ‘if you eat this food your cholesterol will be lower’), or implied (e.g. ‘contains no additives’, ‘all natural ingredients’ etc.).

Over 30% of products surveyed had a ‘fat’ claim such as ‘lo fat’, ‘low in saturated fat’, or ‘98% fat-free’. Arguably these claims could be useful to a buyer seeking to control their weight, but overlooks the fact that total energy intake is really what matters for obesity. Fat is not the only beast with calories.

But of more interest to me were the claims for avoiding Public Enemy Numbers 1, 2 and 3: artificial colours (28% with claims), preservatives and artificial flavours (both 24%). Anyone would think these things were dangerous. But are they dangerous in the way they are used in foods?

Take the yellow food colouring tartrazine for example. Googling ‘tartrazine allergy’ will score you thousands of hits. On the face of it you would have to wonder why Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) allows artificial food colouring to be used at all. The reason is because the evidence for adverse effects from these colours is so flimsy as to be laughable. Colours have been used in foods for decades with no adverse effects. So why are some colours banned in certain countries? The reason is that pressure groups have been so strident that it becomes politically expedient to roll over and appease the activists.

Preservatives are sometimes put in prepared foods to minimise the growth of bacteria. These bacteria can either degrade the food, but be otherwise harmless, or they can be pathogens. At best the latter can make you sick and at worst can kill you. The maximum quantity of preservative added is typically hundreds of times lower that the amounts required to show any kind of response in humans. Preservatives have excellent safety records, and that is why FSANZ allows their use. You would have to wonder about a food manufacturer who neglected to add a preservative to a susceptible food. Such action should be viewed as callous indifference to your health.

The so-called artificial flavour that gets most bad press is MSG, monosodium glutamate. Ostensibly MSG is responsible for the Chinese restaurant syndrome with its claimed headache, flushing, and tingling symptoms. But MSG has been used extensively in Asian cooking for donkey’s years. If it’s so bad, why doesn’t everyone in Asia have a headache? The truth is that it is not bad for you.

Very many common foods have high concentrations of MSG, but no one complains about MSG in cheese, soy sauce, walnuts and broccoli, and a host of other foods. Chinese restaurant syndrome is nothing but an enduring urban myth. So why does MSG have to be declared on labels? One reason is that regulators are simply responding to activist demands. Any hint of a potential problem is dealt with by a label declaration that presumably implies that the additive is a risk and so feeds the myth.

What can or cannot be added to food in New Zealand is governed by FSANZ’s Food Code, which is online for all to read. One guiding principle is you can put additives into foods only where allowed and where needed – up to a specified limit – and crucially, only enough to achieve the required result. You cannot add stuff just for the hell of it, and indeed why would you? Additives cost money and there is often no need for them.

Take beer for example. Current advertisements frequently have an ‘all natural ingredients’ claim ­– whatever ‘natural’ means – and a ‘no preservatives added’ claim. The Food Code allows only one preservative in beer, sulphur dioxide, but it is seldom added because beer, by its very nature, keeps well without preservatives. Similarly, preservatives are not added to breakfast cereals because they are not needed in these dried foods.

The Food Code is thus a very conservative document, making New Zealand food supplies among the safest in the world.

So feel free to ignore the implied health claims that are built on the flimsiest of evidence, and are used to part you and your money through a fear of chemicals – chemophobia (n): an irrational fear of chemicals, particularly those man-made.

Associate Professor Owen Young is Academic Leader, Food Science, AUT University, Auckland

“The Law is an Ass” – with apologies to Mr. Dickens.

In the last week, the Far North District Council in New Zealand has enforced the law and required community members to desist from cooking pickles and jams and selling them through a Hospice Shop. Over the years, these wonderful people have raised around $5000 for the hospice funds each year.

It appears that the District Council received a complaint that the goods were being produced in private kitchens. Under the Food Hygiene Regulations, the council was then obliged to investigate. The regulations specify that production of foods for public consumption may be conducted in unregistered premises only on special occasions.

This situation crops up more than you might expect. About 25 years ago, when my children were small, our country school raised significant amounts of money by pizza drives. About three times a year, the Parents Association purchased commercially made pizza bases and assembled pizzas for sale. The council received a complaint from a commercial pizza parlour that this was unfair competition, since the school did not have a registered premises and therefore had lower costs. We were able to comply with the regulations by specifying the number of times a year our Occasional Food Premises would be used and by registering a relatively simple Food Safety Programme.

To give credit where it is due, the Far North DC and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) are looking at ways the volunteer cooks can continue to produce their foods. Their home kitchens are not registered premises and it is not practical for the volunteers to set up a separate kitchen. I’m looking forward to seeing how the Authority gets around its own antiquated regulations.

However, what is the real risk? The products are essentially heated, acid foods – jams are made from acidic fruit and have a low water activity*, so the most likely microbial spoilage – if there were to be any – would be mould growth, which would be apparent to the consumer. Pickles are acidified foods and the low pH has the same effect, preventing the growth of pathogens. So the microbiological risk to consumers is low. Fruit cakes and similar baked goods are not hazardous either. Obviously, good hygiene in production and handling of all these foods is essential and potential contamination with cleaning chemicals etc. must be prevented.

What are the most hazardous foods on sale today? According to the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, these are leafy greens, with 363 outbreaks (13,568 reported cases of illness); eggs (11,163), tuna (2341), oysters (3409), potatoes (3659), cheese (2761), ice cream (2594), tomatoes (3292), sprouts (2022) and berries (3397). These are listed in order of outbreaks. Notice that jams, pickles and cakes don’t figure in the statistics.

Back in the Far North, everyone is looking to see this resolved soon, so that the volunteers can resume their work for the hospice. The Food Hygiene Regulations are due for replacement with a new Food Act that will shift the emphasis to risk assessment of food processing operations.

As the Assistant Director of NZFSA apparently said, “The law isn't based on common sense and we're looking to improve things."


* See the end of "Free Choice or Safety of the Population" for an explanation of water activity.

Can legislation control Salmonella?

Obviously, some very intelligent people think so. Unfortunately many of them misunderstand the control of food safety.

Food safety legislation is similar to the laws governing road traffic. There are lots of requirements for the design and maintenance of vehicles and prescribed behaviours for their operation. Maximum speeds for each piece of road are set by traffic authorities and advised by signs on the roads. If you exceed the speed limit, you might get away with it most of the time, but speed cameras may catch you. Then you get a ticket and a fine. That’s just money and perhaps demerit points on your licence. Do the speed signs and threat of punishment make us better or more responsible drivers?

Suppose we have an accident and injure or kill another motorist or pedestrian. If we are shown to be at fault, perhaps because of ignoring the speed limit, does the fact that we receive a stiff fine make it any better for the injured party or their family? No way.

The recent outbreak of salmonellosis in the US, carried in peanuts, was almost certainly the result of the flouting of many food safety regulations – the factory was dirty and infested and in-process peanuts were not protected from recontamination. Yet the factory had been inspected and the overall level of food safety was pronounced “superior”. It must be pointed out that the inspector was given only one day to inspect a factory processing several million pounds of peanuts each month and was not an expert in this type of operation. A federal investigation team later discovered that company testing records showed that Salmonella had been found in its products on at least 12 occasions since June 2007. Those products were apparently retested until negative results were obtained and then released to the market.

At least nine people have died from salmonellosis associated with the peanut products and 22,500 were sickened. The existing legislation clearly did not protect them. Some products containing the affected peanuts are apparently still on retail outlet shelves.

In a radio and television address to the American people on 14th March*, President Obama offered his “top ten” ideas for improving food safety. He noted that only about 5% of the 150,000 food production premises were inspected last year, so one billion dollars would be invested in the FDA to increase its ability to inspect premises. Penalties for selling unsafe food would be increased. Unfortunately, he then went on to state that only government can ensure that foods are safe to eat. Wrong, Mr. President!

Food safety is a partnership of trust between government, food producers and suppliers and the consumer. Sure, regulations are required and must be enforced, but no inspection force can guarantee the production and supply of safe food; the manufacturers must be committed to doing so on every day of the year, whether the inspector is due or not.



* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKp02lluq8